Karnataka High Court
J S Paramesh S/O Siddegowda vs Smt Indramma W/O Venkatesh Murthy on 19 June, 2008
®
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2008
PRESENT
THE i--ION'BLE MR. CYRIAC JOSEPH, CHIEF' JI_lf'S;,TIV(43E -
AND
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE A.N. VEANUGOEAATLAV .
WRIT PETITION No.29Q2/_2oo8={{}M_cPc;:'-¥ ;
BETWEEN:
Aged about 36 years;
Javagal village', ' "
Javagal Hobli, v
Arsikere Taluk.
J.S. ' A
4 .. PETITIONER
(By_,Smt. S11«_é§.:'e:'1VaT*Krishha,,VAdv.):
AND; ' '
Smt. Iridré1.fr1tné1
SW10 Venkatesh Murfiihy,
TtAged_ abouf'=40 yeam",
. ..J'_avaga1 village,
4J'ava;ga1 Hobli,
"Afa$ikén: Tagiuk.
.. RESPONDENT
This Writ Petitim coming up for Admission on this day, the delivered the following.
J U I) G M E N T CYRIAC JOSEPH C.J. {Oral} (1) The challenge in the writ petition is against Annei:ure--A order dated 11.12.2007 passed by the learned (Sr.Dn.) 85 Addl. cm, Arsikere in o.s. No. 13/200651: ,tsrpa- the impugned order, the plaintiff is directed; pay duty of Rs.2,l0,000/ --- on the document ,p_roduce1d- as 'bcfore"the* trial Court. The plaintiff is monthi'tin1e.t_o pay the amount. The grievance of that the trial Court While imposinflglmitheeilvfpenialtyii'irnposedten times the amount of the deficient duty. According to the petitioner, the Court had a discretion to impose a ten timesflofiitlie deficient portion of the proper duty _ or a lesisier is contended that the trial Court ought ".__t'o'have exerci_sed.such discretion and imposed a lesser amount 1 .1 'vl§iIhen the writ petition came up before the learned '~-_Ji'ud-gie, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on an observation made by another learned Single Judge in the order 8.12.2005 passed in Writ Petition No.43172/2004. In @/ the said order dated 8.12.2005, the learned Single . Judge observed that the penalty amount will be a ma;:imun'i:'-«ot'~..ten times of the stamp duty payable and that the of ten times does not necessarily mean, that the"Cou'its"'haVe~~. impose the maximum penalty payable.
Single Judge could not agree with._the_ abo"ve__ in the i order passed in Writ Petition No.4;3--~i'Vf2~,/2'Oy(_)4,ithewrit Petition has been referred to the Division'Bcn.b1fi. (3) passed by the trial Court in exercise of the proviso to Section~34- of the 'I-9-57. According to Clause (a) of the amount of the proper duty or deficient 'po.rtion 'thereof five rupees, the penalty to be imposed is equal" to?-ten times such duty or portion. There is no to the Court to impose a lesser penalty. . observation contained in the order dated 8.12.2005 Petition No.43172/2004 that the Courts have the power .Q'--/ to impose as penalty a lesser amount than ten times the amount of proper duty or deficient portion is not correct.-««_.i_i'-The observation is contrary to the clear provisions containedviitiiin proviso to Section-34 of the Karnataka Stamp (4) Hence there is no merit Writ .Petitio:n'I'~flTile Writ' V Petition is dismissed.
_V _ A C'f'i~i?s§ Eiistio-=-'3 . ' 8d":
judge